“We all swore an allegiance to the same document that the president swears allegiance to, to faithfully execute the law,” Gowdy continued. “If a president does not faithfully execute the law… what are our remedies?”

He then argued that Congress should do exactly what then-Sen. Obama suggested before he was president of the United States: “To go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say once and for all: ‘We don’t pass suggestions in this body. … We don’t pass ideas — we pass laws. And we expect them to be faithfully executed.”

Urgent moral authority will suddenly return after the 2014 and 2016 elections.

The popular press is nothing anymore but a propaganda arm of the left. The sad part of that is it really does have a role, but it has decided collectively to give that role away.

I promise you, after the mid-terms, when the House and Senate are returned to the GOP, we will have to listen to ceaseless pronunciations that the only reason for the resurgence of the right is racism.

Then, unemployment will matter again. Overseas troops dying will matter again. Homelessness will matter again. Al Gore will matter again. Infrastructure and the problem with Kansas will matter again. Heck, I bet Cindy Sheehan will vote Republican just to have the chance to matter again, bless her heart.

This is all so predictable and oh so boring.

The left hasn’t had a new idea since Marx died, but by God, they are progressive about 19th Century ideas.

I think everyone should write their Senator and Congressman and demand that budgets for the White House, IRS, DOJ and HHS be zeroed out. Until Obama complies with law and complies with all subpoenas / oversight.

The House has ample grounds to impeach him. It creates its own standing and it is not subject to anyone in the Judiciary.

They could censure him without regard to anyone; each house has that power independently. It has no real effect, but it does serve notice that the actions being censured are not acceptable and should not be repeated by future presidents.

The danger of impeachment is that if there is no conviction, someone might think it was now OK.

I agree with everyone who says the bill is meaningless. A court might enjoin the executive from committing a patently illegal act; it might mandate it to perform a purely administrative act (such as issuing a marriage license); but it will never mandate the performance of a discretionary act (such as bombing the Russian positions in the Crimea). I will let you guess why.

I would impeach Holder on both DOMA and immigration. Tolerating pot legalization too. The standard for impeachment is entirely different than for a court injunction. (Can you see a court ordering the justice department to seize the assets of a Colorado head shop and of the bank in which it deposits its loot, in accordance with the drug trafficking laws?) I agree with the commenters who say that impeachment is the correct procedure.

Maybe I’m not understanding things. I sort of thought the main idea behind the law was to make it easier to impeach as they could point to a very explicit illegal act.
And I think if we impeach Holder why shouldn’t we impeach Holder’s boss? After all, Holder can break the law only as long as his boss lets him do it instead of firing him.

Congress can impeach any way it wants. No impeachment has been challenged successfully in court. Without looking it up, the first one may have been a judge whose “high crime and misdemeanor” was drinking and cussing on the bench.

This bill is, ostensibly, to give Congress standing to sue the President in court on how to do his job. Well, why on Earth, would any President consent to that? Since Obama’s threatened veto is the subject.

You guys have been giving Issa grief but, in my opinion, Trey Gowdy is the grandstanding jackleg on that committee.

Hey, if we’re looking for dark horse candidates for the 2016 GOP nominee, how about Trey Gowdy? He is smart, unwavering, and can cut through BS like the former prosecutor that he is. He’s a lot more likeable than Ted Cruz, a lot more willing to take a few (political) swings than Rubio, does well on TV and gets better coverage than the current crop of GOP Governors. What does he not have that he needs?

Maybe I’m not understanding things. I sort of thought the main idea behind the law was to make it easier to impeach as they could point to a very explicit illegal act.
And I think if we impeach Holder why shouldn’t we impeach Holder’s boss? After all, Holder can break the law only as long as his boss lets him do it instead of firing him.

Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/13/2014 @ 6:44 am

Baby steps and fear. Impeaching Holder is easier than impeaching the POTUS.

Let me go on record as saying that I fully support our president, and the wonderful precedent he is setting. I look forward to the next president “waiving enforcement” of all EPA, OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, and [name agency here] regulations. And to his or her publicly laughing at the explosion of outrage from the Dems and the press (but I repeat myself).